_Which Greek Text?A friendly discussion on the history of the Bible

Bobby: [The new versions of the Bible] actually are more accurate. The amount of manuscripts available now as opposed to when the TR was used are far numerous. It's an interesting study and I recommend you do your research. But with the advancement of textual criticism and newer manuscript evidence available, the newer versions are more accurate. But the KJV is still a good translation, so don't take this as a knock against it.Bill: Have you read any of Dean Burgon's defenses of the TR?Bobby: I have. I took Textual criticism from ABC and have read several of his books that were not required.Bill: What did you think of his "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark"?Bobby: That's one I have not read. I have it on my kindle but haven't read it yet.Bill: What about "The Revision Revised"?Bobby: Yes I have read that one.Bill: I've not found any response to his argument that the early translations support the TR. Do you know of any responses to this argument?Bobby: Do you mean the earliest manuscripts? Like Aleph, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus? Or do you mean earliest translations as in the Peshitta?Bill: Yes. I'm referring to the early translations of the New Testament into other languages like Latin and Syriac. According to Burgon, many of these translations predate the known Greek manuscripts and often give evidence that they were translated from the Byzantine text.Bobby: I'll have to get back with you. It's been a while since I've studied it, but I believe Bruce Metzger covered that. I'll have to look it up again. It may have been another Text. Critic though.Bill: No problem. I'm waiting on a response from Dr. James White on the same question. Another question that I have difficulty getting answered is the question of how one determines which reading is actually correct. It is obvious that none of the critical texts were based on the philosophy of the oldest manuscripts being the best since they frequently vacillate between manuscripts of varying ages. What measure do you use to determine which reading is correct?Bobby: I do disagree with Metzger on the reasons he lists, and also on his application, for the same reason you mentioned. However, the age of the manuscript does lend more weight to it's reading being valid. Then the amount of witnesses, whatever kind it may be, would also be used in determining the most accurate reading. The common reason (among CT) that the shorter reading is preferred does not make much sense to me either, because if I had to copy something by hand I sure wouldn't want to make it longer. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I think most would have a similar thought. But the complexity to simple seems to also be a legitimate measurement into the accurate rendering as well. It looks like it was a similar problem to the Greek Text of the KJV. Where the manuscripts were not available, or a scribe used a different manuscript, and thus perpetrated the continued use of TR manuscripts, while neglecting א, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus.Bill: Why does the age of the manuscript lend more weight to it being correct?Bobby: The argument could go both ways. Either one could say that an older manuscript is close to the autographs, or there are no older manuscripts because they were used and then destroyed. For me it lends more weight because it would have been closer to the autographs in age.Bill: But what if the oldest manuscripts disagree with a reading found in the translations and in the writings of the church fathers both of which are at least as old as the manuscripts?Bobby: Could it be that those sources used the wrong manuscripts? And would that be in all the church fathers without exception?Bill: It's certainly possible that they used an errant manuscript, but that would mean that the errant manuscript predates the oldest correct manuscript which, in turn, would mean that you have rely on something other than age to determine which one is correct.Bobby: Not necessarily. Age isn't the only factor to consider. It just lends more weight to its validity. At least in my estimation.Bill: When dealing with copies that disagree, manuscript age should only be a factor if an absolute age can be determined for the text itself. To judge by the age of the actual manuscript is not logically sound.Bobby: It is logically sound. It would be illogical to use it as the only means of determining validity, but to dismiss it as completely logically unsound is a mistake. If one used only the age of a manuscript it would be a problem. But to use the age along with other standards, it becomes a useful tool in the discussion. What would you consider to be the litmus test for texts?Bill: My primary litmus test is inerrancy. For example, any manuscript which reads "Isaiah the prophet" instead of "the prophets" in Mark 1:2 is an erroneous manuscript. Similarly, any manuscript which has Jesus saying "I go not up" instead of "I go not yet up" in John 7:8 is an erroneous manuscript.Bobby: What is the basis for that? I mean, what means to you use to determine which rendering is inerrant, and which is not?Bill: In Mark 1:2, the error is that the prophecy being referenced is found partly in Isaiah and partly in Micah. Thus the reading which only attributes it to Isaiah is wrong, and the reading which attributes it to the prophets is right. In John 7:8, leaving out the word "yet" makes Jesus a liar.Bobby: So the main test for you would be that the manuscript not contain errors? Is that correct?Bill: The content of the text should be free from error.Bobby: So would that mean that if a CT was free from error that you would accept that?Bill: I would be very strongly inclined to accept it. Of course there are other considerations such as whether or not that manuscript is complete, but on the whole, I would have very little problem with the Critical Text if it did not contain errors like the two which I just mentioned.Bobby: Okay. The only reason I am asking is because both families, i.e. the TR and CT contain manuscripts with discrepancies.Bill: There are individual manuscripts (within the more than 50,000 of the Byzantine family) which contain errors in the content of their text, but in every case there is abundant testimony of a non-errant reading. Those who compiled the TR used the non-errant readings. The CT, on the other hand, adopts readings that contain obvious contradictions such as the two which I previously mentioned.Bobby: Again, there is an inconsistency found on both sides. There are CT that contain no errors with additional textual apparatus to show variations and attestations. Likewise, the TR has an abundance of manuscripts that differ (some quite a deal), but through textual criticism scholars have developed a work that does not contain errors. Good scholars are divided on the issue, though most scholars today, particularly those in evangelical circles, accept the CT as the closer of the two.Bill: When you say that they accept the CT as the closer of the two, are you saying that they believe it to be closer to the inerrant Word of God or that they just believe it to be closer to the original autographs?Bobby: The original autographs, though I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.Bill: The two are not necessarily the same. Here's a letter from Dr. Hort explaining that he was not committed to the view that the original autographs were inerrant: "I do most fully recognise the special 'Providence' which controuled the formation of the canonical books ... But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing. I may see a certain fitness and probability in such a view, but I cannot set up an a priori assumption against the (supposed) results of criticism. So perhaps you would say -- in terms, at least -- but you would deny that the fair results of criticism, making allowance for our imperfect knowledge, prove the existence of any errors. I am as yet prepared neither to deny nor to assert it. I shall rejoice on fuller investigation to find that imperfect knowledge is a sufficient explanation of all apparent errors, but I do not expect to be so fortunate. If I am ultimately driven to admit occasional errors, I shall be sorry; but it will not shake my conviction of the providential ordering of human elements in the Bible." Now, if we hold to the view that the original autographs were in fact inerrant, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that any text which does not retain that inerrancy is therefore flawed? I think that it would, and that is why I cannot accept the Critical Text as an accurate representation of the Word of God. Here's the source for the above quote:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Rxc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA422Bobby: I disagree. The belief that the originals were I inerrant does not necessitate all further copies to be inerrant. This does not dis annul a view of preservation either, as God promises He would preserve His Word, but never said how or to what extent. The fact that humans were involved in the transmission process along with scribal errors is evident on both the TR side as well as the CT side. So again we are left with evidences for both, reasonings for either view, and each individual must choose between the evidence and weigh that with their view of inerrancy, preservation, and transmission. By the way, Hort's views are not those of all pro-CT people. Obviously there would be many like him, but there are also many people who accept inerrancy while utilizing the CT.Bill: When you say that each individual must choose, are you saying that there is more than one correct choice for a given reading? I hope that is not what you are saying, but if you recognize that there is only one correct choice (i.e. only one choice that matches what God actually wrote in the original autographs), and if you recognize that the original autographs were inerrant, then it follows that the one correct choice will be a reading which is inerrant. Thus, regardless of all other considerations, we can automatically eliminate any reading which contains errors because those readings cannot be accurate depictions of what God wrote in the original autographs. The CT does not discard readings which contain obvious errors.Bobby: No, that is not what I am saying. I'm stating that both sides have some valid points, evidence to back them up, and good men who hold to those views. I don't believe there are errors in the correct CT, and though there may be apparent discrepancies, there is a cohesion throughout the entire manuscript. If there is an error, then we have simply not found the correct manuscript. I've still said that there isn't a complete agreement in the TR family, which is one of the reasons that led me to the CT side.Bill: I'm having difficulty understanding your last post. Are you saying that: 1) there is a critical text which does not contain any errors in its content, or 2) there is a known manuscript within the Alexandrian family which does not contain any errors in its content, or 3) there is a lost manuscript which would fit in the Alexandrian family and which does not contain errors in its content I'm also not sure what you are saying about the TR. Are you claiming that the content of the TR contains errors similar to the two which I pointed out in the CT, or are you saying that you turned away from the TR because some of the manuscripts in the Byzantine family do not agree with other manuscripts within that same family?Bobby: Yes to the first three, though certain aspects would be different. And yes, you understand what I meant about the TR.Bill: So which critical text do you think does not contain any errors?Bobby: The Nestle Aland text. That's the one I currently use, though they are constantly updating it as newer manuscripts are discovered.Bill: The Nestle-Aland text contains both of the errors which I mentioned previously.Bobby: I read your comment, and after looking at it I'm not sure how it's an error.Bill: Well, the CT of Mark 1:2-3 says: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight--" The TR of the same passage reads: "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." When we look for the source of this prophecy we discover that it is a two-part prophecy given half in Malachi and half in Isaiah. "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:" is from Malachi 3:1, but "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." is found in Isaiah 40:3. There are two prophets cited for this prophecy. The TR correctly conveys this, but the CT erroneously claims that the prophecy was from Isaiah. The other error that I mentioned is found in John 7:8. The CT of that passage records Jesus as saying: "Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." However, in verse 10, we find that Jesus did go up to the feast. If the CT reading is correct, then Jesus lied to His brothers by telling them that He would not go up to the feast and then secretly going to the feast anyway. How can you say that these are not errors in the CT?Bobby: Because Isaiah did write part of the prophecy it would not be false to give him credit. It would be more of a semantics game. Because the word "only" was not used, it did not wrongly attribute the prophecy solely to Isaiah. The passage in John in is not an error either. Jesus' statement is in regards to His death. Verse one sets the context for this. So we see that there is no error, just a difference in context. Do that make sense?Bill: In Mark 1, there are two well attested readings. One of those readings attributes the prophecy to Isaiah while the other attributes it to "the prophets." Is there any evidence other than the relative age of the manuscripts which indicates that the Isaiah reading is the best representation of the original autographs? As for the passage in John, it is most definitely an error. Verse 1 of chapter 7 is in the same format as verse 1 of chapter 6 and verse 1 of chapter 5. These verses utilize a common form of transitional statement. In 5:1, we are told that after Jesus healed the nobleman's son, Jesus traveled to Jerusalem. The events throughout the remainder of chapter 5 did not take place during His journey to Jerusalem but rather afterwards. The same is true of 6:1 which tells us that after the events of chapter 5, Jesus traveled across the sea of Galilee. The remainder of chapter 6 speaks of the events which took place after Jesus reached the other side of the sea not of those which took place during the crossing. And then we come to 7:1 where we read that Jesus walked in Galilee and not in Jewry because the Jews wanted to kill him. Just as in 5:1 and in 6:1, 7:1 is a transitional statement explaining what happened in the time between the end of chapter 6 and the events which are to be described in chapter 7. The first event described in chapter 7 is that of the brothers of Jesus telling Him that He should go up to the feast at Jerusalem. This is the context of 7:8. According to the CT, Jesus answered His brothers by saying that He would not go to the feast, then in verse 10, He went up to the feast anyway. According to the TR, Jesus answered his brothers by saying that He would not go to the feast yet, and then in verse 10, He went up to the feast later. There is nothing in 7:1 which mitigates the fact that the CT rendering of 7:8 has Jesus lying to His brothers.Bobby: The rest of verse eight states "for my time has not yet fully come." This clarifies the thought, makes the connection to 7:1, and removes the apparent error. Had that phrase not appeared then there would be an error, but John added that thought to set the difference between Jesus' idea of "going up to this feast." As far as Mark's passage, I do not have my GNT with me, so I'll have to get back to you on that one. If my memory serves me correctly, though, the amount of readings attesting to that rendering outweigh the other TR reading. But let me get back to you on that one.Bill: The phrase "My time is not yet full come" is a reference to His brothers' statement that He should declare Himself openly to the world in verse 4. This is evident from verse 6 when Jesus said that His brothers' time "alway ready" while His time was not yet come.Bobby: So if you read it that way it still removes the error, because Jesus' statement was not meant that He would literally not go up, just not in the public sense. So there would be no error in either rendering, the TR just states it outright while the CT leaves it to be understood by the context.Bill: That doesn't help your case any. The fact that Jesus was not at that time ready to openly reveal Himself in Jerusalem as the Messiah only serves to explain what He meant when He said that His time was not yet come. This fact would not have been sufficient to justify His going to the feast after telling His brothers that He would not. Think of what would have transpired if one of Christ's brothers had seen Him at the feast after hearing Jesus say what the CT records Him as saying. Would that brother be correct in concluding that he had been deceived by the words of Jesus?Bobby: I think we will have to agree to disagree on this verse. I don't see any issues of clarification, with either rendering. I don't think Jesus' brothers would have thought Christ was attempting to deceive them because they knew what He meant afterward.Bill: No problem. Thank you for the exchange. It was invigorating to discuss this issue with someone who can do more than just hurl invectives.Bobby: Thank you! It was very enjoyable and always made me think. Let's do it again sometime.